Case law

Skelly v. Dockweiler

75 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 5, 1947

On November 6, 1947, Mission Corporation, a Nevada corporation, not a defendant herein, to be referred to as Mission, through its Board of Directors, issued a notice of a special meeting of stockholders to be held at the … language which so fully answers the contention here made that such control, of necessity, taints the acts of the controlling interests with fraud, that we quote it here in full : 4 “Where two corporations, through their boards

Hodges v. Gloria

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 22, 2024

(quoting Hobler v. Brueher, 325 F.3d 1145, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)). … See Motorola, Inc. v. J.B.

In re Border Infrastructure Envtl. Litig.

284 F. Supp. 3d 1092 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 27, 2018

of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ("Board") and held that the Financial Institutional Supervisory Act's ("FISA") preclusion provision barred judicial review of pending Board administrative actions. … Ass'n v.

Harper Ex Rel. Harper v. Poway Unified School District

345 F. Supp. 2d 1096 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 4, 2004

Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699 , 109 S.Ct. 2136 , 104 L.Ed.2d 766 (1989) (religious exercise defined as observation of central religious belief); Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Sec. … According to defendants, this case fits perfectly within the examples set forth in the Board Policy. Id. at 12-13.

Bruce v. United States

167 F. Supp. 579 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 29, 1958

Watsonville Community Hospital, 1956, 47 Cal.2d 509, 514-515 , 305 P.2d 36 ; Salgo v. Leland Stanford, etc., Board of Trustees, 1957, 154 Cal.App.2d 560, 568-572 , 317 P.2d 170 . 11 . Dierman v. … Pace, supra, 118 Cal.App.2d at page 289 , 257 P.2d at page 758 ; Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees, 1957, 154 Cal.App.2d 560, 571-572 , 317 P.2d 170 . 12 . Campbell v.

Justino Rupard v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 5, 2025

Williams v. County of San 24 Diego, 2019 WL 2330227, at *3 (citing Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. … The County argues that the Court should not rely on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 11 In re Grand Jury and instead, this Court should adopt the reasoning found In re Kellogg Brown 12 & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754 (D.C.

In Re George & John Hurt

129 F. Supp. 94 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 23, 1955

General Bankruptcy Order 47, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53; Brown v. Freedman, 1 Cir., 1942, 125 F.2d 151 ; Staunton Industrial Loan Corp. v. … Corporation Code, § 15001 et *98 seq.; California Employment Stabilization Commission v. Walters, 1944, 64 Cal.App.2d 554, 558 , 149 P.2d 17 ; Kaufman-Brown Potato Co. v. Long, 9 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 594 .

Hucker v. Daub

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 22, 2021

Defendants Brown and Melkumyan were assigned to his 22 therapy team. Id. … Jett v.

McKeown v. Southern California Freight Forwarders

52 F. Supp. 331 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 29, 1943

B. v. Gulf Public Service Co., 5 Cir., 116 F.2d 852 ; and N. L. R. B. v. … National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601 , 307 U.S. 609 , 59 S.Ct. 668, 672 , 83 L.Ed. 1114 .

Jurewitz v. Bank of America, N.A.

938 F. Supp. 2d 994 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 10, 2013

United States v. FMC Corp., 531 F.3d 813, 819 (9th Cir.2008) (quotation omitted); see United States v. … Brokers, Inc. v. Brown & Toland Med. Group, 143 Cal. App.4th 1036, 1041-42 , 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 609 (2006) (same).

Deem v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co.

24 F.R.D. 16 · District Court, S.D. California · May 28, 1959

While the Court “has always judged petitions drawn by laymen * * with liberality” [Smith v. … time when litigants with legitimate controversies are entitled to claim the time and energies of the court, as against groundless, repeated proceedings by incompetent laymen who file matters and calendar them as a sounding board

Pacific Resources Associates LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, et al. v. Suzy Cleaners, an organization, et al.

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 2, 2025

Navalier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 947 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Ins. Corp. of Ireland, 3 Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 707 (1982)). … in their Water 21 Board Petition.

Wilkins v. Parker

35 F. Supp. 1004 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 7, 1940

See my opinion in Neale v. Railroad Commission, D.C.,Calif.1940, 32 F.Supp. 407 . The action cannot be entertained as “arising under any law regulating commerce.” Judicial Code, Sec. 24(8), 28 U.S. C.A. § 41(8). … L. v. Hirsch, 6 Cir., 1913, 204 F. 849, 854 ; Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Zemurray, 5 Cir., 1917, 238 F. 789 ; Delpit v. United States Shipping Board E. F. Corp., 9 Cir., 1927, 19 F.2d 60 ; Young & Jones v.

Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.

128 F. Supp. 824 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 20, 1955

Monolith argues that some resolution was required by the R.F.C. board. … R.F.C. was correct and was supported by the decision of the Appeal Board in Benjamin Franklin Graphite Co. v.

Johnson v. Law

19 F. Supp. 3d 1004 · District Court, S.D. California · May 14, 2014

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A v. Brown, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851 , 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011). 1. … Line, Inc. v. Wartsila N.

Bartholomae Corporation v. United States

135 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 2, 1955

In Dalehite v. … In Dalehite v.

Evans v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 24, 2024

See Brown-Hunter v. … See Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 488–89; see also Leza v. Kijakazi, 4 No. 21-16079, 2022 WL 819782, at *2 (9th. Cir. Mar. 17, 2022).

Anderson v. General Dynamics Convair Aerospace Division

430 F. Supp. 418 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 15, 1977

Yott v. … See, e. g., separate opinions or Judge Gee, Judge Brown and Judge Rives, in Cooper v. General Dynamics, Convair Aerospace Division, 533 F.2d 163 (5th Cir. 1976). 12 .

Buxbom v. City of Riverside

29 F. Supp. 3 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 23, 1939

Ambler Realty Co., 1926, 272 U.S. 365 , 47 S.Ct. 114 , 71 L.Ed. 303 , 54 A.L.R. 1016 ); if the erection of bill boards may be made dependent upon consent of owners of property in the neighborhood (Cusack Co. v. … Co. v. St.

Miholich v. The Real Brokerage, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 11, 2025

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu , 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 25 (9th Cir. 2006). … Declaration of Garland Brown in support of Lofty’s Opposition to 4 || Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 80, Ex. 3). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 ||Dated: June 11, 2025 -